Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010109752025 2025:GAU-AS:9246 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1703/2025 HELLAL ALI SHEIKH AND ANR S/O ABDUL JALIL SK. R/O VILLAGE AIRANJANGLA PT III, PS DHUBRI, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783323 2: RATUL HUSSAIN MONDAL S/O LT SAFIOR HUSSAIN MONDAL R/O VILLAGE BIDYAPARA WARD NO. 10 PS DHUBRI DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhya Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Hellal Ali Sheikh and 2. Ratul Hussain Mondal, who are detained behind the bars since 16.04.2024, in connection with Special Case No. 515/2024, arising out of Golokganj P.S. Case No. 82/2024 under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 which is presently pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.04.2024, one Hirak Jyoti Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Golokganj police station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that huge quantity of contraband would be transported from West Bengal in a bus bearing Registration No. WB 63A 2361, a naka checking was arranged and both the petitioners were apprehended therefrom and during the search operation 2.06 kgs of capsules containing Tramadol was recovered therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have filed this instant bail application mainly on the ground of Page No.# 3/7 violation of their fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 5. He submits that though notices under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. were served on the petitioners at the time of their arrest, however, it did not contain the grounds of arrest therein. He submits that apart from police station case number and the penal provisions, no other information was provided to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under such circumstances where grounds of arrest were not furnished, the arrest of the petitioners itself becomes vitiated and on that ground only, they are entitled to get bail. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in “2025 SCC Online SC 269”. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the instant case the contraband seized is of commercial quantity. Hence, apparently the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. However, he fairly submits that the notices under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. which were served on the petitioner at the time of their arrest do not contain the grounds of arrest. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copies of the records of the Special Case No. 515/2024, which was requisitioned in connection with this case. Page No.# 4/7 10. The Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” (supra) has observed as follows:- “21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the Page No.# 5/7 requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 11. Thus, in the event of non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest to an arrestee at the time of his arrest, the arrest of the petitioner itself becomes vitiated, and on the said ground such an arrestee is entitled to get bail. 12. In the instant case also, it appears that from the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs that the notices under Section which is served on the Page No.# 6/7 petitioner do not contain the grounds of arrest. Hence, in the instant case also, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforecited judgement, the arrest of the petitioner is itself vitiated and on that ground they are entitled to get bail. 13. Accordingly, both the above-named petitioners are entitled to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with a surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhurbi with the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall cooperate in the trial of Special Case No. 515/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri; ii. That the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioners; iv. That the petitioners shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioners shall submit their leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. Page No.# 7/7 14. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant